Search

Constructive type theory combines logic and programming in one language. This is useful both for reasoning about programs written in type theory, as well as for reasoning about other programming languages inside type theory. It is well-known that it is challenging to extend these applications to languages with recursion and computational effects such as probabilistic choice, because these features are not easily represented in constructive type theory. We show how to define and reason about a programming language with probabilistic choice and recursive types, in guarded type theory. We use higher inductive types to represent finite distributions and guarded recursion to model recursion. We define both operational and denotational semantics, as well as a relation between the two. The relation can be used to prove adequacy, but we also show how to use it to reason about programs up to contextual equivalence. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first model of a programming language with probabilistic choice and recursive types in a constructive type theory., Comment: 60 pages

Properties such as provable security and correctness for randomized programs are naturally expressed relationally as approximate equivalences. As a result, a number of relational program logics have been developed to reason about such approximate equivalences of probabilistic programs. However, existing approximate relational logics are mostly restricted to first-order programs without general state. In this paper we develop Approxis, a higher-order approximate relational separation logic for reasoning about approximate equivalence of programs written in an expressive ML-like language with discrete probabilistic sampling, higher-order functions, and higher-order state. The Approxis logic recasts the concept of error credits in the relational setting to reason about relational approximation, which allows for expressive notions of modularity and composition, a range of new approximate relational rules, and an internalization of a standard limiting argument for showing exact probabilistic equivalences by approximation. We also use Approxis to develop a logical relation model that quantifies over error credits, which can be used to prove exact contextual equivalence. We demonstrate the flexibility of our approach on a range of examples, including the PRP/PRF switching lemma, IND\$-CPA security of an encryption scheme, and a collection of rejection samplers. All of the results have been mechanized in the Coq proof assistant and the Iris separation logic framework.

We present Tachis, a higher-order separation logic to reason about the expected cost of probabilistic programs. Inspired by the uses of time credits for reasoning about the running time of deterministic programs, we introduce a novel notion of probabilistic cost credit. Probabilistic cost credits are a separation logic resource that can be used to pay for the cost of operations in programs, and that can be distributed across all possible branches of sampling instructions according to their weight, thus enabling us to reason about expected cost. The representation of cost credits as separation logic resources gives Tachis a great deal of flexibility and expressivity. In particular, it permits reasoning about amortized expected cost by storing excess credits as potential into data structures to pay for future operations. Tachis further supports a range of cost models, including running time and entropy usage. We showcase the versatility of this approach by applying our techniques to prove upper bounds on the expected cost of a variety of probabilistic algorithms and data structures, including randomized quicksort, hash tables, and meldable heaps. All of our results have been mechanized using Coq, Iris, and the Coquelicot real analysis library.

Probabilistic programs often trade accuracy for efficiency, and are thus only approximately correct. It is important to obtain precise error bounds for these approximations, but existing approaches rely on simplifications that make the error bounds excesively coarse, or only apply to first-order programs. In this paper we present Eris, a higher-order separation logic for probabilistic programs written in an expressive higher-order language. Our key novelty is the introduction of error credits, a separation logic resource that tracks the error bound of a program. By representing error bounds as a resource, we recover the benefits of separation logic, including compositionality, modularity, and dependency between errors and program terms, allowing for more precise specifications. Moreover, we enable novel reasoning principles such as expectation-preserving error composition, amortized error reasoning, and proving almost-sure termination by induction on the error. We illustrate the advantages of our approach by proving amortized error bounds on a range of examples, including collision probabilities in hash functions, which allows us to write more modular specifications for data structures that use them as clients. We also use our logic to prove correctness and almost-sure termination of rejection sampling algorithms. All of our results have been mechanized in the Coq proof assistant using the Iris separation logic framework and the Coquelicot real analysis library.

Almost-sure termination is an important correctness property for probabilistic programs, and a number of program logics have been developed for establishing it. However, these logics have mostly been developed for first-order programs written in languages with specific syntactic patterns for looping. In this paper, we consider almost-sure termination for higher-order probabilistic programs with general references. This combination of features allows for recursion and looping to be encoded through a variety of patterns. Therefore, rather than developing proof rules for reasoning about particular recursion patterns, we instead propose an approach based on proving refinement between a higher-order program and a simpler probabilistic model, in such a way that the refinement preserves termination behavior. By proving a refinement, almost-sure termination behavior of the program can then be established by analyzing the simpler model. We present this approach in the form of Caliper, a higher-order separation logic for proving termination-preserving refinements. Caliper uses probabilistic couplings to carry out relational reasoning between a program and a model. To handle the range of recursion patterns found in higher-order programs, Caliper uses guarded recursion, in particular the principle of L\"ob induction. A technical novelty is that Caliper does not require the use of transfinite step indexing or other technical restrictions found in prior work on guarded recursion for termination-preservation refinement. We demonstrate the flexibility of this approach by proving almost-sure termination of several examples, including first-order loop constructs, a random list generator, treaps, and a sampler for Galton-Watson trees that uses higher-order store. All the results have been mechanized in the Coq proof assistant.

Probabilistic couplings are the foundation for many probabilistic relational program logics and arise when relating random sampling statements across two programs. In relational program logics, this manifests as dedicated coupling rules that, e.g., say we may reason as if two sampling statements return the same value. However, this approach fundamentally requires aligning or "synchronizing" the sampling statements of the two programs which is not always possible. In this paper, we develop Clutch, a higher-order probabilistic relational separation logic that addresses this issue by supporting asynchronous probabilistic couplings. We use Clutch to develop a logical step-indexed logical relational to reason about contextual refinement and equivalence of higher-order programs written in a rich language with higher-order local state and impredicative polymorphism. Finally, we demonstrate the usefulness of our approach on a number of case studies. All the results that appear in the paper have been formalized in the Coq proof assistant using the Coquelicot library and the Iris separation logic framework.

Adversarial computations are a widely studied class of computations where resource-bounded probabilistic adversaries have access to oracles, i.e., probabilistic procedures with private state. These computations arise routinely in several domains, including security, privacy and machine learning. In this paper, we develop program logics for reasoning about adversarial computations in a higher-order setting. Our logics are built on top of a simply typed $\lambda$-calculus extended with a graded monad for probabilities and state. The grading is used to model and restrict the memory footprint and the cost (in terms of oracle calls) of computations. Under this view, an adversary is a higher-order expression that expects as arguments the code of its oracles. We develop unary program logics for reasoning about error probabilities and expected values, and a relational logic for reasoning about coupling-based properties. All logics feature rules for adversarial computations, and yield guarantees that are valid for all adversaries that satisfy a fixed resource policy. We prove the soundness of the logics in the category of quasi-Borel spaces, using a general notion of graded predicate liftings, and we use logical relations over graded predicate liftings to establish the soundness of proof rules for adversaries. We illustrate the working of our logics with simple but illustrative examples., Comment: Full version of ICFP 21 paper

Sensitivity properties describe how changes to the input of a program affect the output, typically by upper bounding the distance between the outputs of two runs by a monotone function of the distance between the corresponding inputs. When programs are probabilistic, the distance between outputs is a distance between distributions. The Kantorovich lifting provides a general way of defining a distance between distributions by lifting the distance of the underlying sample space; by choosing an appropriate distance on the base space, one can recover other usual probabilistic distances, such as the Total Variation distance. We develop a relational pre-expectation calculus to upper bound the Kantorovich distance between two executions of a probabilistic program. We illustrate our methods by proving algorithmic stability of a machine learning algorithm, convergence of a reinforcement learning algorithm, and fast mixing for card shuffling algorithms. We also consider some extensions: proving lower bounds on the Total Variation distance and convergence to the uniform distribution. Finally, we describe an asynchronous extension of our calculus to reason about pairs of program executions with different control flow., Comment: Major revision

Probabilistic programming provides a convenient lingua franca for writing succinct and rigorous descriptions of probabilistic models and inference tasks. Several probabilistic programming languages, including Anglican, Church or Hakaru, derive their expressiveness from a powerful combination of continuous distributions, conditioning, and higher-order functions. Although very important for practical applications, these combined features raise fundamental challenges for program semantics and verification. Several recent works offer promising answers to these challenges, but their primary focus is on semantical issues. In this paper, we take a step further and we develop a set of program logics, named PPV, for proving properties of programs written in an expressive probabilistic higher-order language with continuous distributions and operators for conditioning distributions by real-valued functions. Pleasingly, our program logics retain the comfortable reasoning style of informal proofs thanks to carefully selected axiomatizations of key results from probability theory. The versatility of our logics is illustrated through the formal verification of several intricate examples from statistics, probabilistic inference, and machine learning. We further show the expressiveness of our logics by giving sound embeddings of existing logics. In particular, we do this in a parametric way by showing how the semantics idea of (unary and relational) TT-lifting can be internalized in our logics. The soundness of PPV follows by interpreting programs and assertions in quasi-Borel spaces (QBS), a recently proposed variant of Borel spaces with a good structure for interpreting higher order probabilistic programs.

We extend the simply-typed guarded $\lambda$-calculus with discrete probabilities and endow it with a program logic for reasoning about relational properties of guarded probabilistic computations. This provides a framework for programming and reasoning about infinite stochastic processes like Markov chains. We demonstrate the logic sound by interpreting its judgements in the topos of trees and by using probabilistic couplings for the semantics of relational assertions over distributions on discrete types. The program logic is designed to support syntax-directed proofs in the style of relational refinement types, but retains the expressiveness of higher-order logic extended with discrete distributions, and the ability to reason relationally about expressions that have different types or syntactic structure. In addition, our proof system leverages a well-known theorem from the coupling literature to justify better proof rules for relational reasoning about probabilistic expressions. We illustrate these benefits with a broad range of examples that were beyond the scope of previous systems, including shift couplings and lump couplings between random walks., Comment: To appear at ESOP '18 (Extended version with appendix)

We define Almost Sure Productivity (ASP), a probabilistic generalization of the productivity condition for coinductively defined structures. Intuitively, a probabilistic coinductive stream or tree is ASP if it produces infinitely many outputs with probability 1. Formally, we define almost sure productivity using a final coalgebra semantics of programs inspired from Kerstan and K\"onig. Then, we introduce a core language for probabilistic streams and trees, and provide two approaches to verify ASP: a sufficient syntactic criterion, and a reduction to model-checking pCTL* formulas on probabilistic pushdown automata. The reduction shows that ASP is decidable for our core language.

Relational program verification is a variant of program verification where one can reason about two programs and as a special case about two executions of a single program on different inputs. Relational program verification can be used for reasoning about a broad range of properties, including equivalence and refinement, and specialized notions such as continuity, information flow security or relative cost. In a higher-order setting, relational program verification can be achieved using relational refinement type systems, a form of refinement types where assertions have a relational interpretation. Relational refinement type systems excel at relating structurally equivalent terms but provide limited support for relating terms with very different structures. We present a logic, called Relational Higher Order Logic (RHOL), for proving relational properties of a simply typed $\lambda$-calculus with inductive types and recursive definitions. RHOL retains the type-directed flavour of relational refinement type systems but achieves greater expressivity through rules which simultaneously reason about the two terms as well as rules which only contemplate one of the two terms. We show that RHOL has strong foundations, by proving an equivalence with higher-order logic (HOL), and leverage this equivalence to derive key meta-theoretical properties: subject reduction, admissibility of a transitivity rule and set-theoretical soundness. Moreover, we define sound embeddings for several existing relational type systems such as relational refinement types and type systems for dependency analysis and relative cost, and we verify examples that were out of reach of prior work., Comment: Submitted to ICFP 2017